A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 166206

> Carol responds:
> I'm sorry, but I'm not really following your argument here. 
I'm not suggesting that "interrogators" is synonymous with 
"judges." I was referring to my own earlier post, in which I 
suggested that the "interrogators" were part judge, part 
prosecuting attorney, whereas Dumbledore is part witness for 
the defense, part defense attorney (using American 
terminology).

Goddlefrood, enrobed once more ;)

You're not a lawyer ;), we use some relatively technical 
language, on the whole. Very familiar with how your (flawed 
IMHO) system in America works, or actually virtually does not. 
(For many anyway). Oh, and it was not really an argument, 
only an attempt to place some facts before those interested, 
as you seem to be :)

Here's what you wrote in previous, no editing:

> > Carol:

> > The job of interrogator (judge?) was supposed to be Madam 
Bones's alone, as Head of the Department of Magical Law 
Enforcement, just as it's Barty Crouch Sr.'s alone (with no 
interference from the then-current Minister for Magic) in the 
GoF Pensieve scenes. The hearing was originally supposed to 
take place in Madam Bones's office.

Goddlefrood:

We do not actually know this for a fact. That is that the Head 
of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement presides over the 
Wizengamot, which is what we are dealing with. To reinforce 
this I put before you the fact that Dumbledore was the Chief 
Warlock of the Wizengamot, and my previous submission on 
Cornelius Fudge as being Chairman for Harry's proceedings in 
OotP. 

A small aside: elsewhere in cyberspace it has been pointed out 
that the Wizengamot is similar to the House of Lords (the 
highest appeal body in the United Kingdom (distinct from the 
Privy Council before any one asks. On that basis the Chief 
Warlock of the Wizengamot would be analogous to the Lord 
Chancellor, a link for those interested:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9048949/lord-chancellor

By placing the interrogatory after Judge (typically capitalised) 
in the brackets, my view was that you were querying the term 
and I wanted to assist with that. When I give legal rambles I 
tend to express myself in so-called legalese. If it is still not 
clear then do please check what I mentioned about an 
Inquisitorial system. I'll even give you a couple of links this 
time, research being important for reasoned argument, which I 
have now turned to: 

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/star-chamber.htm 
(On The Court of Star Chamber I had in mind in previous)

http://www.thenagain.info/Webchron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html 
(On Spanish Inquisition)

Surprisingly similar to the Wizengamot, I believe you may find.
WW stuck in Medieval Times, as it were. WW, after all, did not 
evolve exactly parallel to our own in terms of its Institutions, 
couldn't really, different world altogether, fictional for a 
start.

The point I was making disregarded the fact that the hearing 
was supposed to have originally taken place in Ms. Bones's 
office. It is a fact that it was to have been somewhat informal 
and in camera (private). It did not turn out that way and I 
merely took the view that irrelevancies should be overlooked, 
as I do in my professional life. Makes it easier for me :)

> Carol: 

> As I understand it, a judge presides over a hearing or trial 
and asks the jury for a verdict afterwards. So, to that extent, 
Madam Bones, like Crouch Sr. before her, seems to be acting as 
a judge. I realize that judges do not normally interrogate 
witnesses or defendants (that would be the job of the various 
lawyers or attorneys or whatever term you prefer). <SNIP>

Goddlefrood:

Well, in the real world a Judge does preside over a hearing or 
trial (and may I say I am glad that point seems clearer :))

If it were a pure judicial trial, which I have analysed it as 
having not been, then your understanding is far from the same 
as mine.

A Judge does preside, but he is the arbiter of law, the jury 
is the arbiter of fact. When the jury decides on the facts, 
based on the law that the Judge would tell them in his summing 
up of the case, after all witnesses have been heard and 
Counsels or Attorneys made their submissions, it decides the 
outcome of the trial. It can only adjudicate on the facts of 
the case and must bear in mind whatever the Judge has told them 
about the law in his summing up. Should it not then the verdict 
would be easily defeated on appeal, where there would be no jury, 
only cold, analytic appeal Judges, or if you prefer Justices of 
Appeal.

Oh, and Judges can, and do, question witnesses if there is 
any point that is not clear to them. This has the rider that 
if such questions are asked then the Counsels or Attorneys 
can cross-examine once more, but only in respect of the 
udge's questions, not on any new points they may have 
forgotten in the original examination in chief, cross 
examination or re examination. It is all, even just based on 
this portion, very different from what is seen of the 
Wizengamot in both incarnations of which we have been made 
aware in canon (here I'm lumping all the trials glimpsed in 
GoF into one).

I state panel in my first post in this matter and I maintain 
that view. 

There are similarities to Judge Advocates, as the US Military 
for instance have. In that sense, but it is clearly distinct 
from a Judge, you could use Judge, but with the added 
Advocate :). 

Here's a further link for those still with me:

http://12.170.132.252/default2.asp?selected=1054&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

<SNIP> - I believe maters in snip already addressed, prepared 
to listen to contrary view ;)

> > Goddlefrood earlier:
> > All *I* can infer, and I mention this in previous, is that 
the hearing Harry attended was conducted by a presiding body 
with the format outlined there. Chairman, Legal Expert and 
another undefined role for Dolores. Notwithstanding the use 
of the word Inquisitors, which I am not comfortable with 
accepting. 
 
> Carol:
> Okay, now I'm confused again. No one in the previous posts 
in this thread used the word "Inquisitors." Nor does JKR (via 
Fudge) use that term in "The Hearing." Fudge refers to himself, 
Umbridge, and Madam Bones as "interrogators" (and they 
certainly do interrogate Harry and Mrs. Figg, or at least 
Fudge and Madam Bones do--Umbridge just questions Dumbledore 
with regard to the Dementors--and we know why she's interested 
in that particular topic).

Goddlefrood:

I used it there, so must have referred to something else, not 
prepared to look right now. The links already provided may 
assist with these points.  Also should help with the next bit 
I've snipped out. :)

Here are some more links to further potential enlightenment:

http://www.allwords.com/word-interrogation.html 
(Aware it's interrogation, but useful)

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0197200.html 
(Interrogate, yes, but Interrogator also there)

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0157800.html 
(For Inquisitor)

Note please, Carol. At this stage I am not prepared to go into 
any more than just Harry's hearing. I do not propose to address 
points relative to Dolores's later role as High Inquisitor. 
Links may also help with this, if you want to run with it, I do 
not, thank you for the invitation though :)
 
> > Goddlefrood:
> > <snip>
> > It is simply inconceivable that Madam Bones did not vote in 
favour of clearing Harry of all charges (more usually termed 
voting not guilty, not proven appearing to be unavailable). We 
just were not shown it. <snip>

> Carol:

> I disagree. <SNIP> - invalid argument, I'm afraid

Your are entitled to. One of the beauties of law actually. I 
am not swayed by your reasoning and refer back to my own, most 
of which Carol has snipped in her reply. The point on Ms. Bones
voting was argued (that part was argued ;)) from a purely 
logical point of view, subjective of course, difficult to be 
otherwise. It is supported by my knowledge of the system. 

Quite frankly, though, I do not expect this point (Ms. Bones
voting or otherwise) to actually be revealed in DH, as it is
in my submission only relevalt to historical matters (with
reagrd to the series that is)

> Carol:

> I'm also wondering why Madam Bones refers to Harry as "the 
witness" rather than "the defendant," which sounds to me like 
a Flint.

Goddlefrood:

This point I can assist with. When a person on trial is called 
to give evidence on his own account, as Harry is, he is spoken 
of as a witness.

At all other times during the proceedings, that is while not 
giving evidence he is spoken of as a defendant, subject to the 
nature of proceedings. Hope that is clear. Not a Flint, depth 
of research on JKR's part.
 
> > > Carol earlier:

> > > Fudge again steps in to say "Cleared of all charges, but 
that does not make it his job to do so." He is, IMO, 
overstepping his authority here and throughout the book with his 
ministerial decrees and the appointment of Umbridge as High 
Inquisitor. <SNIP> - Carol's snip
 
> > Goddlefrood:
> > On this point, it will be found from my earlier, that I 
concluded that Fudge was the Chairman, the relevant canon quotes 
are there. It is *always* part of the function (please not job) 
of a Chairman in a proceeding to announce the verdict, however 
reluctant he or she may be, and of course Fudge appeared 
reluctant.

> > He is not overstepping his authority *here* although he may 
have done so before the proceedings were convened. Once they 
were convened he *was* the Chairman and carried out the expected 
function of one. <snip> - one of Carol's again

> Carol:
> But as I see it, it's Madam Bones whose "function" ought to 
be that of the Chairman. <SNIP>

Goddlefrood:

One line of exposition on this one. "Ought to be" not "is" 
from which perspective I was writing to show that Fudge was 
actually the Chairman in Harry's hearing howsoever he came to
the position.

Carol, as indicated by your queries I am glad you enjoyed it 
and trust the list is also enjoying.

BTW I will not post again on this subject for some time. I have 
some things to look after, they're called the wife and kids.

Enjoy the remainder of St. Patrick's Day and the balance of the 
weekend, where applicable :)

Goddlefrood, happy that the mosquitoes have now abated and with 
his bill for fees in the post ;)